Re: [asa] What is Warfare?

It's not a warfare model, IMO.

It's a form of concordism--looking for ways to make two truths agree.

The warfare view has various forms, but what they all have in common is the
assumption that science has, does, and will conflict with theological
claims--that such conflict is inevitable, and that the absence of any such
conflict can only be a temporary and local situation. Furthermore, science
is assumed to be more reliable for all truth claims relevant to this
interaction. In milder forms of warfare, traditional theological claims are
"reformulated" to avoid conflict; in harder forms, traditional religion is
completely discarded and science becomes religion itself. White and his
modern descendants (in my book, this would include Peacocke, Barbour, and
many other liberal theologians) follow the milder warfare model, whether or
not they realize it. Dawkins and company follow the harder form. Thinkers
like Torrance, Polkinghorne, McGrath, and other more conservative
theologians reject both forms of the warfare model: in their view, some core
theological truths are objectively true, with or without support from
science, and science cannot legitimately force theology to reformulate them.
 The Trinity and the bodily resurrection would be two obvious examples of
truths in this category.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 4 12:20:36 2008